5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in the town of Kozelsk, the Kaluga region.
6.  On 20 April 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of involvement in infliction of bodily injuries leading to death.
7.  On 22 April 2003 the Kozelskiy district court of the Kaluga region (“the district court”) authorised the applicant’s continued detention with reference to the gravity of the charges against him and his previous conviction of theft. The court considered that if at large the applicant could obstruct the proceedings and continue his criminal activities. On 7 May 2003 the Kaluga regional court (“the regional court”) upheld the decision.
8.  On 18 June 2003 the district court extended the applicant’s detention in view of the gravity of the charges, the fact that the applicant had a criminal record, was not employed and, if released, could reoffend or obstruct the criminal proceedings against him. The judge also noted that the materials adduced by the prosecution disclosed that there was a serious case against the applicant. The applicant did not appeal.
9.  On 20 July 2003, upon completion of certain investigative measures, the prosecutor’s office decided to release the applicant from custody.
10.  On 22 July 2003 the applicant was released under an undertaking not to leave his place of residence.
11.  On 19 May 2004 the district court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to ten years and six months’ imprisonment. The period of detention from 20 April to 22 July 2003 was counted towards the sentence. The applicant was immediately taken into custody.
12.  On 20 July 2004 the Kaluga regional court quashed the conviction on appeal and ordered a re-trial. It also held that the applicant should remain in custody; the court cited no legal ground for the preventive measure and set no time-limit.
13.  On 8 October, 9 December 2004 and 20 January 2005 the district court repeatedly returned the case to the prosecutor, inter alia, in view of certain deficiencies in the bill of indictment. On all occasions the judge found that the applicant should remain in custody without citing any legal grounds for it. The decisions of 8 October 2004 and 20 January contained no reasons for extending the detention while that of 9 December 2004 dismissed the applicant’s request for release with a reference to the gravity of charges. The applicant did not appeal.
14.  On 20 January 2005 the district court extended the applicant’s detention until 20 April 2005. It gave no reasons except for the fact that the trial was pending.
15.  On 5 February 2005 the applicant pleaded guilty while being questioned in the presence of his lawyer and signed the record. Later he withdrew his plea.
16.  On 7 April 2005 the district court convicted the applicant of inflicting bodily injuries leading to death. The defence and the prosecution lodged their respective appeals.
17.  On 10 June 2005 the regional court sitting on appeal found that the first-instance court should have excluded testimonies given without counsel, quashed the judgment of 7 April 2005 and ordered a re-trial. The regional court also held without any reasons being given that the applicant should remain in custody, and extended the applicant’s detention until 1 August 2005.
18.  In July 2005 counsel requested that the applicant be released pending the re-trial. On 25 July 2005 the district court rejected that request, inter alia, with reference to the gravity of the charges and the applicant’s previous conviction. The court extended his detention until 1 November 2005. The applicant appealed arguing that on 22 July 2003 he had already been released upon an undertaking not to leave his place of residence, which he had complied with. On 2 September 2005 the regional court upheld the order of 25 July 2005.
19.  On 26 October 2005 the district court ordered the applicant’s release under an undertaking not to leave the place of his residence. The applicant was immediately released.
20.  On 20 December 2005 the district court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. The applicant was immediately taken into custody.
21.  On 21 February 2006 the regional court upheld the judgment of 20 December 2005 thus making it final.
22.  On 20 November 2008 the Zheleznodorozhny district court of Penza decided to apply to the applicant measures of compulsory psychiatric treatment. The applicant was then transferred to a psychiatric hospital in the town of Sychevka in the Smolensk region.
23.  In the applicant’s initial submission, he submitted that he was kept in IZ-16/1 of Kazan between 15 July and 24 September 2008. During that period (except for two weeks) the applicant had no individual bed in the cell and had to sleep in shifts with two or three other inmates, which deprived him of an opportunity to have a sufficient time for sleep.
24.  In his observations on the admissibility and merits of the application of 5 October 2009 the applicant clarified that he had stayed in the facility in question between 15 August and 24 October 2008.
25.  The applicant was kept in IZ-16/1 during two periods of time: (a) between 15 August and 24 September 2008; and (b) between 22 and 24 October 2008. He was transferred there temporarily from the post‑conviction detention facility in which he had been serving his sentence so that he could undergo a psychiatric expert assessment. Between 24 September and 22 October 2008 the applicant stayed in a psychiatric hospital.
26.  The applicant was kept in cells nos. 5 (from 15 until 17 August 2008), 6 (from 17 August until 19 September 2008), 11 (from 19 until 24 September 2008), and 46 (from 22 until 24 October 2008).
27.  The cells presented the following characteristics:
-  cell no. 5: 20.06 square metres and five sleeping places;
-  cell no. 6: 16.2 square metres and four sleeping places;
-  cell no. 11: 20.98 square metres and five sleeping places;
-  cell no. 46: 12.4 square metres and three sleeping places.
28.  The temperature in the cells was around +20 degrees Celsius. There was a ventilation system in each cell. There were windows that let in enough light. Lavatories were separated from the rest of the cells with partitions.
29.  The Government, relying on the certificates issued by the prison governor on 12 May 2009, submitted that the number of inmates kept in each of the above cells had not exceeded the number of sleeping places and that, while in IZ-16/1, the applicant at all times had had an individual sleeping place; he had been provided with a set of bed linen. They also produced three statements by detainees kept in IZ-16/1 in cells nos. 6 and 11 from December 2008 and April 2009, respectively. Finally, they enclosed the applicant’s cell register and extracts from the prison population register of IZ-16/1 covering each day in the periods from 15 until 25 August 2008; from 27 August until 23 September 2008; and from 23 until 24 October 2008. The extracts showed that during the respective periods of the applicant’s stay cell no. 5 had housed four to five persons, cell no. 6 – two to four persons, cell no. 11 - five persons, and cell no. 46 – three persons.